Do you think he should’ve just drawn on the kid rather than try to dive on him? Seems in the state the shooter was in he would’ve shot him if he had pulled his weapon, not surrendered. Should he have just shot him while he was down? What was tactically the best option? And legally?
I’m not sure whether it’s a weakness or a strength that for someone on the left, the non-lethal option was what he went for. You just know any CHUD would’ve shot first asked questions later, as proven by the fash baby.
That's true but that's not how the law works. I have no sympathy for the kid here. What I am trying to explain though is what I see as the most probable way this will be framed and handled within the legal system. It doesnt make it right or true or any less fucked up but, based on what I know today, this kid's defense team has a good hand. Its fucked up but its not enough to say that. We need to understand how and why things play out the way they do.
Are you sure? I'm not super confident but it's not like a school shooter gets cleared on the specific murders where someone was coming at him with a chair. And you can't claim self defense when you're doing a robbery.
Someone in here said just being in the commission of a felony means you don't have access to the self defense claim
Yes school shooters dont get to claim self defense but the process of how the law actually works doesnt play out on moral or ethical grounds is more what I mean. Rather it plays out on the terrain of narrative and perception. Moreover the situations are not great comparisons. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doudt that this kid murdered someone. This means the defense just has to create doudt. In this case, the defense can claim, as some others already have, that the kid shot someone because, he says, they threw a molotove coctail at him. As such they will claim he was in danger and responded with justified lethal force. Because this is off camera it is easier to create doubt via conflicting testimony, etc. If there is doubt about what happened before he is running down the street on camera, it becomes more difficult to prove, according to the court, that this kid murdered someone and assaulted/attempted murder someone else. The defense can now create a chain of events where their client did nothing illegal and was wrongfully assaulted by protesters. Here the legal code is strucured in a way that allows such a narrative to be compelling in court. Again I dont believe any of this. I think this kid is a murderer and if he has a legally plausible defense (again not moral or ethical) we need to know that so we can apply preasure if this is the case.
As you mentioned, the above point is moot if self-defense is not a legal option while one is commiting a crime. If this is the case, the kid will be convicted. I glanced at the state's self defense statutes and nothing jumped out at me in this regard. Doesnt mean its not there just that I didnt see it and you and at least one other are right to raise that point because if its true we dont need to concern ourselves with his court case because he has no defense and a conviction, barring gross corruption, is a sure thing.
He was illegally posessing a firearm the whole time, which was an active felony, so he can't claim self defense. I'm not a lawyer but I really think he's fucked
Possesion of a deadly weapon by a minor is a class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin. The distiction might be important. As you and others have brought up he could well be fucked but only if Wisconsin explicitly prohibits self defense when someone is taking part in a criminal act which could be restricted to felonies. If not, kids got a chance of beating the murder charge.